Gross density and new urbanism: Comparing conventional and new urbanist suburbs in markham, ontario

Journal of the American Planning Association

Volumn 71, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 41-54

  Gordon, David ^a   Vipond, Shayne ^b  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Planning Services for Halifax Regional Municipality   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SUBURBAN AREA; URBAN DESIGN; URBAN DEVELOPMENT;

CANADA; NORTH AMERICA; ONTARIO; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 17044429446     PISSN: 01944363     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01944360508976404     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Angle, H., 1998. Kerb appeal:The external appearance and site layout of new houses, London:Popular Housing Forum.
2. Alexander Reed, E. R.D.K., and Murphy, P., 1988. Density measures and their relation to urban form, Milwaukee:University of Wisconsin, Center for Architecture and Urban Planning Research.
3. Audirac, I., and Smith, M. T., 1992. Urban form and residential choice:Preference for urban density in Florida. Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, 9:19–32.
4. Beaumont, C. E., and Pianca, E. G., November 2000. Historic neighbourhood schools in the age of sprawl:Why Johnny can't walk to school, November, Washington, DC:National Trust for Historic Preservation.
5. Berke White, P. R.N., Lane, D., Holmes, M., Macdonald, J., Oury, K., and Ryznar, R. 2002. Greening development to protect watersheds:Is New Urbanism the answer?, University of North Carolina, Department of City & Regional Planning Chapel Hill. (Working Paper)
6. Berke White, P. R.N., Lane, D., Holmes, M., Macdonald, J., Oury, K., and Ryznar, R. 2003. Greening development to protect watersheds:Is New Urbanism an answer?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69 (4):397–413.
7. Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg Ltd. 1991. Guidelines for the reurban-ization of metropolitan Toronto:A draft for discussion, Toronto:Municipality of Metro Toronto, Metro Planning Division.
8. Blais, P., 2000. Inching toward sustainability:The evolving urban structure of the Greater Toronto Area, Toronto:University of Toronto and Metropole Consultants.
9. Boarnet, M. G., and Crane, R. 2001. Travel by design:The influence of urban form on travel, New York:Oxford University Press.
10. Bohl, C. C., 2000. New Urbanism and the city:Potential applications and implications for distressed inner-city neighbourhoods. Housing Policy Debate, 11 (4):761–801.
11. Bourne, L. S., 2001. The urban sprawl debate:Myths, realities and hidden agendas. Plan Canada, 41 (4):26–28.
12. Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler & Smith Inc. 2001. Langstaff Woods concluding planning report re:The final block 10 plan, City of Vaughan Vaughan, ON City of Vaughan
13. Breheny, M., 2001. “ Densities and sustainable cities:The UK experience ”. In Cities for the new millennium, Edited by:Echenique, M., and Saint, A., 39–51. London:Spon Press.
14. Calthorpe, P., 1993. Next American metropolis:Ecology, community, and the American dream, New York:Princeton Architectural Press.
15. Campsie, P., 1994. To Duany or not to Duany, that is the question. Ontario Planning Journal, 9 (3):8
16. Cervero, R. 1998. The transit metropolis:A global inquiry, Washington, DC:Island Press.
17. Cervero, R., and Kockelman, K., 1997. Travel demand and the 3Ds:Density, diversity, and design. Transportation Research Record D:Transport and the Environment, 3:199–219.
18. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency. 1997. Futurescape survey, Chattanooga, TN:Author.
19. Congress for the New Urbanism. 1999. Charter of the New Urbanism, New York:McGraw-Hill.
20. Cornell Development Team. 1993. Cornell facts, Toronto:Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
21. Cullingworth, J. B., 1993. The political culture of planning:American land use planning in comparative perspective, New York:Routledge.
22. Duany Plater, A., Zyberk, E., and Speck, J., 2000. Suburban nation:The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream, New York:North Point Press.
23. Ewing, R. 1997. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63 (1):107–126.
24. Ewing, R., and Cervero, R., 2001. Travel and the built environment 87–114. Transportation Research Record 1780
25. Farris, T., 2001. The barriers to using urban growth infill development to achieve smart growth. Housing Policy Debate, 12 (1):1–30.
26. Filion, P., 2000. Balancing concentration and dispersion? Public policy and urban structure in Toronto. Environment and Planning C:Government Policy, 18 (2):163–189.
27. Forman, R. 1995. Land mosaics:The ecology of landscapes and regions, New York:Cambridge University Press.
28. Frank, L. D., and Pivo, G., 1994. An analysis of relationships between urban form (density, mix, and jobs:housing balance) and travel behavior (modachoice, trip generation, trip distance, and travel time), Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC).
29. Gordon, D. L. A., 1990. “ Bathurst Spadina & St. Lawrence:A discussion of the comparison of neighbourhood density ”. In Learning from St. Lawrence (Appendix C), Edited by:Gordon, D., Toronto, ON:Ryerson School of Urban and Regional Planning.
30. Gordon, D. L. A., and Tamminga, K., 2003. Large-scale traditional neighbourhood development and pre-emptive ecosystem planning:Reviewing the Markham experience, 1989–2001. Journal of Urban Design, 7 (3):321–340.
31. Gordon, P., and Richardson, H. W., 1997. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63 (1):95–106.
32. Gyourko, J. E., and Rybczynski, W., 2000. Financing New Urbanism projects:Obstacles and solutions. Housing Policy Debate, 11 (3):733–750.
33. Harvey, D., 1997. The New Urbanism and the communitarian trap. Harvard Design Magazine,:68–69. Winter/Spring
34. Hemson Consulting Ltd. Milus Bollenberghe Topps, Watchorn, & Baird/Sampson Architects. December 1993. Report of the GTA House Forms and Densities Steering Committee, December, Toronto:Office for the Greater Toronto Area.
35. Hitchcock, J., 1994. A primer on the use of density in land use planning, Toronto:University of Toronto. (Papers on Planning and Design, No. 41)
36. Hodge, G., 2003. Planning Canadian communities:An introduction to the principles, practices and participants (4th ed., Toronto:Nelson.
37. IBI Group. 1992. Transit supportive land use planning guidelines, Toronto:Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
38. Kaiser Godschalk, E. J.D.R., and Chapin, F. S., Jr. 1995. Urban land use planning (4th ed., Urbana:University of Illinois Press.
39. Krieger, A., 1998. Whose urbanism?. Architecture, November:73–76.
40. LDR International, Inc., Cervero, R, and Ewing, R., 2000. Coordinating transportation and land use:Course manual, New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University National Transit Institute, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Highway Administration.
41. Lehrer, U., and Milgrom, R., 1996. New (sub)urbanism:Countersprawl or repackaging the product. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 7 (2):49–64.
42. Lehman & Associates. 1992. Markham urban area expansion study, Markham, ON:Town of Markham.
43. Lehman & Associates. March 1995. Urban density study:General report, March, Toronto:Ontario Office for the Greater Toronto Area.
44. Leung, H.-L., 1995. A new kind of sprawl:New Urbanism. Plan Canada, 34 (5):3–4.
45. Leung, H.-L., 2002. Land use planning made plain (2nd ed.), Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
46. Levine, J. C., 1998. Rethinking accessibility and jobs-housing balancing. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64 (2):133–149.
47. Lynch, K., and Hack, G., 1984. Site planning (3rd ed., Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
48. Malone Givens Parsons Ltd. 1993. Future living area requirements:Report 1, Ajax, ON:Town of Ajax Planning Department.
49. Marshall Macklin Monaghan. March 21 1996. Draft plan of subdivision of part of lots 12, 13 14 and 15, concession 9, Town of Markham, March 21, Newmarket, ON:York Region Planning Department. (Regional Municipality of York Draft Plan 19T-9511)
50. Maryland Department of Planning. July 2001. Maryland's Greenprint Program July, Retrieved June, 2002, from www.dnr.state.md.us/ greenways/greenprint/
51. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. July 2001. Legacy open space functional master plan–Open space conservation in the 21st century, July, Silver Spring, MD:Author.
52. Myers, D., and Gearin, E., 2001. Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments. Housing Policy Debate, 12 (4):633–659.
53. Myers, D., and Kitsuse, A., 1999. Cambridge, MA:Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. The debate over future density of development:An interpretive review (Working Paper WP99DM1)
54. Nelessen Associates. 1998. York Region vision plan, Newmarket, ON:York Region Department of Planning and Development.
55. Nicholson, J. P., and O'Neill, J., 1999. The case for active and safe routes to school:An information and discussion paper, Ottawa, ON:Go for Green.
56. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 1995. Alternative development standards:Making choices, Toronto:Author.
57. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 1996. Transit and urban form:Volume 1, part II–Commuter and light rail transit corridors:The land use connection, Washington, DC:Transit Cooperative Research Program. (TCRP Report 16)
58. Plater-Zyberk, E., 2002. “ Cornell, Markham, Ontario ”. In The Seaside debates:A critique of the New Urbanism, Edited by:Bressi, T., 110–118. New York:Rizzoli.
59. Pollard, T., 2001. Greening the American dream? If sprawl is the problem is New Urbanism the solution?. Planning, October:10–15.
60. Pushkarev, B. S., and Zupan, J. M., 1977. Public transportation and land use policy, Bloomington:Indiana University Press.
61. Pyatok, M., 2000a. Comment on Charles C. Bohl's “New Urbanism and the City:Potential Applications and Implications for Distressed Inner-City Neighbourhoods”–The politics of design:The New Urbanists vs. the grass roots. Housing Policy Debate, 11 (4):803–814.
62. Pyatok, M., 2000b. Martha Stewart vs. Studs Terkel? New Urbanism and inner city neighbourhoods that work. Places, 13:40–43.
63. Rouse Company. 1966. Columbia:A new city, Columbia, MD:Author.
64. Rouse Company. 1974. Columbia, Maryland plan, Columbia, MD:Author.
65. Salama, J. J., 1999. The redevelopment of distressed public housing:Early results from HOPE VI Projects in Atlanta, Chicago, and San Antonio. Housing Policy Debate, 10 (1):95–142.
66. Sandercock, L., 1998. Towards cosmopolis:Planning for multicultural cities, New York:John Wiley & Sons.
67. Sorkin, M., 1998. Acting urban:Can new urbanism learn from Modernism's mistakes?. Metropolis, 18 (1):37–39.
68. Statistics Canada. 2001. Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, census metropolitan areas, census agglomerations and census subdivisions Retrieved August 29, 2004, from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/ censusoi/products/standard/popdwell/
69. Steuteville, R. 1997. New Urbanism catches on in Canada. New Urban News, 2 (2) March/April:1–7.
70. Steuteville, R., 1998. Hotbed of neotraditional development:In Markham, Ontario, New Urbanism is available in pure and diluted doses. New Urban News, 5 (2) March/April:7–9.
71. Steuteville, R., 2000a. New Urbanism and traditional neighbourhood development:Comprehensive report and best practices guide, Ithaca, NY:New Urban News.
72. Steuteville, R., 2000b. Markham, Ontario plans neighbourhoods on a large scale. New Urban News, 5 (4) July/August:10–13.
73. Steuteville, R., 2001. New Urbanist project construction starts soar. New Urban News, 6 (8) October/November:1–4.
74. Stein, D. L., June 21 2002. June 21, A25 905 making progress on smart growth. Toronto Star
75. Tamminga, K., 1996. Restoring biodiversity in the urbanising region:Towards pre-emptive ecosystems planning. Plan Canada, 36 (4):10–15.
76. Tennenbaum, R. 1996. Creating a new city:Columbia, Maryland, Columbia, MD:Perry Publishing.
77. Town of Ajax Planning Department. February 1999. Community plan for planning community A6, February, Ajax, ON:Author.
78. Town of Markham. 2001a. Markham demographic profile www.city.markham.on.ca/portal.city.markham.on.ca/pls/portal3o/PORTAL30.site?psiteid=38Retrieved November 5, 2001, from
79. Town of Markham. 2001b. Transportation issues:Background information Retrieved November 5, 2001, from www.city.markham.on.ca/ transportatonmediakit.pdf
80. Town of Markham Planning Department. March 1994a. Official plan amendment and secondary plan:Angus Glen secondary plan area, March, Markham, ON:Author.
81. Town of Markham Planning Department. March 1994b. Official plan amendment and secondary plan:Cornell community plan, March, Markham, ON:Author.
82. Town of Markham Planning Department. March 1996. Official plan amendment and secondary plan:Berczy Village secondary plan area, March, Markham, ON:Author.
83. Town of Markham Planning Department. June 1997a. Official plan amendment and secondary plan:Greensborough Planning District amendment No. si, June, Markham, ON:Author.
84. Town of Markham Planning Department. March 1997b. Official plan amendment and secondary plan:Wismer Commons, March, Markham, ON:Author.
85. Town of Markham Planning Department. June 1980. Official plan of the Markham planning prea:Secondary plan (PD 1–4) for the part of the Markham Planning District (Planning District No. 1:Raymerville East Markham), June, Markham, ON:Author.
86. Town of Markham Planning Department. November 20 2001. Cornell review (Report to the Development Services Committee), November 20, Markham, ON:Author.
87. Transit Cooperative Research Program. 1995. An evaluation of the relationships between transit and urban form. Research Results Digest, 7 June
88. Tribute Homes. 2001a. Nottingham–An enclave community Retrieved October 28, 2001, from www.tributecommunities.com
89. Tribute Homes. 2001b. Nottingham site plan Retrieved October 28, 2001, from www.tributecommunities.com/nottingham/siteplan.html
90. Wood-Brunet, E., 1994. The New Urbanism in Markham. Ontario Planning Journal, 9 (3) May/June:7–8.
91. Zehr, L., 1996. Law Development Group to develop Markham site. The Globe and Mail, October 10:R1